Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29592 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 4707 of 2025 Applicant :- Jaykesh Pandey Alias Piyush Pandey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Puneet Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Kalp Dev Mishra Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. 2. Heard Sri Puneet Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Kalp Dev Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Susheel Kumar Shukla, learned State Law Officer and also perused the material available on record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 176 of 2024, under Sections 65(1), 351(3), 333 of B.N.S. and Sections 3/4(2) of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kasimabad, District - Ghazipur, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY: 4. The applicant is stated to have come to the roof of the victim and had committed rape with her and had video recorded the said incident. 5. The applicant had threatened the victim to get the said video viral on 21.07.2024 at about 04:00 am. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT: 6. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 7. The FIR is delayed by about 36 hours and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 8. Earlier on, the applicant was booked under Section 107, 116 Cr.P.C on 31.07.2023 and there was an enmity between the parties. 9. The instant case is clear cut case of false implication. 10. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 11. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length. 12. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.07.2024, having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with trial. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF INFORMANT/ STATE BY STATE LAW OFFICER: 13. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that age of the victim was 13 years old as such, applicant is not entitled for bail. CONCLUSION: 14. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 15. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 16. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". 17. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 18. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, pending trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, there being no medical corroboration, coupled by the delay in institution of FIR of 36 hours, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 20. Let the applicant- Jaykesh Pandey @ Piyush Pandey, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law. 21. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 22. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 Priya (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad